Stephens A J, Sapsford D J, Curzon M E
Department of Child Dental Health, University of Leeds.
Br Dent J. 1993 Jul 10;175(1):20-5. doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4808210.
A double blind, cross-over study to compare intravenous sedation using continuous infusions of midazolam and propofol was carried out in 18 handicapped patients, aged between 5 and 26 years. Using a syringe pump (Ohmeda 9000) midazolam was delivered at 0.4 mg/kg/h with a bolus dose of 0.02 mg/kg and propofol was infused at 4.0 mg/kg/h with a bolus dose of 0.2 mg/kg. Sequential analysis showed that induction and recovery times were shorter with propofol (P < 0.05 and P < 0.01 respectively) and more work was performed over unit time (P < 0.05), with 15.7 units of work being completed per hour on patients under propofol sedation compared to 11.0 units under midazolam. The quality of sedation was assessed as better in patients receiving propofol; eight cases were abandoned under midazolam infusion due to failure of induction, uncontrolled movement and/or emotional outbursts compared with none under propofol. All parents/patients preferred propofol sedation, because recovery was faster and smoother.
对18名年龄在5至26岁之间的残疾患者进行了一项双盲交叉研究,以比较持续输注咪达唑仑和丙泊酚进行静脉镇静的效果。使用注射泵(Ohmeda 9000),咪达唑仑以0.4mg/kg/h的速度输注,推注剂量为0.02mg/kg,丙泊酚以4.0mg/kg/h的速度输注,推注剂量为0.2mg/kg。序贯分析表明,丙泊酚的诱导和恢复时间更短(分别为P<0.05和P<0.01),单位时间内完成的工作量更多(P<0.05),丙泊酚镇静的患者每小时完成15.7个工作量单位,而咪达唑仑组为11.0个。接受丙泊酚的患者镇静质量评估更好;咪达唑仑输注时有8例因诱导失败、运动不受控制和/或情绪爆发而中止,而丙泊酚组无此情况。所有家长/患者都更喜欢丙泊酚镇静,因为恢复更快、更平稳。